Arthur Drews on Jesuan Parables and Teaching Speeches

Nov 2016
577
Germany
#1
a. The parables

German radical critique Arthur Drews has refuted in detail the argument of the believers in the existence of Jesus that the supposed uniqueness of Jesus' parables is a certain proof of his existence. Thus many parables can be traced back to more or less similar stories in older Gnostic traditions or in the Talmud, which can hardly be suspected of having imitated the evangelistic parables. The parable of ´workers in the vineyard´, for example, can be found in analogous form in Berachoth 5:3, but with a much more reasonable punch line than his derivative in Mt 20:15 ff, where the vineyard owner acts like an irrational narcissist. Also the parable of ´royal wedding feast´ in Mt 22:1 ff. is not only based on a Talmudic model, but is considerably behind it in terms of logic and ethics. The Talmud was also the model for the parables of the lost sheep and the lost piece of silver.

b. The teaching speeches

As for the teachings of the Jesus figure, the situation is not better. The basic problem here - of course - is the questionable authenticity of the sayings. Source Q, a hypothetical lost collection of sayings from which the authors of Mt and Lk are said to have drawn Mk as an alternative to their other source, stands on shaky legs as a guarantee of authenticity. Drews argues that if this collection had really contained genuine Jesus sayings, it would certainly have been guarded like a treasure and, moreover, numerous backup copies would have been made of it. Instead, Q seems not only to have been lost, but also forgotten for centuries, and it has been reserved for critical modernist biblical scholars to rediscover it - speculatively.

According to Drews, many teachings lack both wisdom and originality. They are far from reaching the fine dialectic of Socrates. The fact that Pharisees and Sadducees are so easily taken by surprise by Jesuan rhetoric has a propagandistic fictional effect. They thus follow the pattern of the princes in the 29th chapter of the Book of Job, who can only stand silent and open-mouthed in the face of Job's speeches. Jesus' love for the weak and the lowly, as emphasized by theologians, is shown in Psalm 8 and in the Halach, the Kidushin and the Tanchuma of the Talmud, as exemplified by the children, birds and flowers in his speeches. The fact that Jesus accentuates his God as ´father´ to a much greater degree and thus goes far beyond the traditional Jewish image of God is a standard theological argument that does not stand up to reality. On closer inspection the Jesuan God turns out to be indistinguishable from the Jewish God, whose caring ´fatherly´ qualities are clearly expressed e.g. in Psalm 103 and in Isaiah 63:16. The identity of the concepts of God becomes evident in Mk 12:28 f. and Mt 22:32, where Jesus speaks of the One God of Israel or the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The ideal of charity propagated by Jesus is likewise not originally Christian, but borrowed from Deuteronomy, the Book of Leviticus and the Book of Tobias. In addition, it contradicts its numerous threats of eternal hell torment for all possible supposed offenses, including the rejection of his doctrine (e.g. Mk 6:11; Mt 10:15; Mt 12:23), which also runs completely counter to the love for ´enemies´ (Mt 5:44) propagated in the Sermon on the Mount. Nowhere in the Jesuan speeches is the artificiality of a Jesus figure, sewn together from legends, more evident than in this contradiction, unless one presupposes a preacher who talks like this today and like that tomorrow, and a following that is not disturbed by it. The problem is aggravated by the fact that the Jewish tradition does not even know an eternal hell punishment, which is introduced into the Jewish discourse only by Jesus, the supposed "Prince of Peace".

In summary it can be said that the figure of Jesus is by no means as perfect and exemplary as the Christian tradition would have us believe to this day. Furthermore it can only be regarded as authentic with an unjustifiable advance of trust in texts (the 4 gospels) which, apart from the aforementioned inconsistencies and improbabilities, are only historically attested from 180 CE, thus about 100 years after their alleged origin.
 
Last edited:
Likes: bboomer

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#3
a. The parables

German radical critique Arthur Drews has refuted in detail the argument of the believers in the existence of Jesus that the supposed uniqueness of Jesus' parables is a certain proof of his existence. Thus many parables can be traced back to more or less similar stories in older Gnostic traditions or in the Talmud, which can hardly be suspected of having imitated the evangelistic parables. The parable of ´workers in the vineyard´, for example, can be found in analogous form in Berachoth 5:3, but with a much more reasonable punch line than his derivative in Mt 20:15 ff, where the vineyard owner acts like an irrational narcissist. Also the parable of ´royal wedding feast´ in Mt 22:1 ff. is not only based on a Talmudic model, but is considerably behind it in terms of logic and ethics. The Talmud was also the model for the parables of the lost sheep and the lost piece of silver.
Jesus often quoted the OT, so it wouldn't be surprising if his parables were also from established sources and not unique .

But I don't see the resemblance clained for the parables. None of the Gnostics parables I have seen are as long as Parables of the Good Samaritan, not include centemporary references such as the Parables of the Pharisee and the tax collector. The reference to s Pharisee only makes sense in the context of 1st cenury 2nd Temple Judaism.

Can you give an example of a Gnodtic poo stable that is as long as the Parables of the Prodigal Son, or contained contemporary references?

b. The teaching speeches

As for the teachings of the Jesus figure, the situation is not better. The basic problem here - of course - is the questionable authenticity of the sayings. Source Q, a hypothetical lost collection of sayings from which the authors of Mt and Lk are said to have drawn Mk as an alternative to their other source, stands on shaky legs as a guarantee of authenticity. Drews argues that if this collection had really contained genuine Jesus sayings, it would certainly have been guarded like a treasure and, moreover, numerous backup copies would have been made of it. Instead, Q seems not only to have been lost, but also forgotten for centuries, and it has been reserved for critical modernist biblical scholars to rediscover it - speculatively.
Drew's opinion is his own, and of questionable merit. Paul,, although he demonstrated he knew sayings and teachings of Jesus, didn't seem to particularly prize them, and resorted to them when he had no it her alternative.

The church, for whatever reason, did not like sayings without a contextual

According to Drews, many teachings lack both wisdom and originality. They are far from reaching the fine dialectic of Socrates. The fact that Pharisees and Sadducees are so easily taken by surprise by Jesuan rhetoric has a propagandistic fictional effect. They thus follow the pattern of the princes in the 29th chapter of the Book of Job, who can only stand silent and open-mouthed in the face of Job's speeches. Jesus' love for the weak and the lowly, as emphasized by theologians, is shown in Psalm 8 and in the Halach, the Kidushin and the Tanchuma of the Talmud, as exemplified by the children, birds and flowers in his speeches. The fact that Jesus accentuates his God as ´father´ to a much greater degree and thus goes far beyond the traditional Jewish image of God is a standard theological argument that does not stand up to reality. On closer inspection the Jesuan God turns out to be indistinguishable from the Jewish God, whose caring ´fatherly´ qualities are clearly expressed e.g. in Psalm 103 and in Isaiah 63:16. The identity of the concepts of God becomes moreevident in Mk 12:28 f. and Mt 22:32, where Jesus speaks of the One God of Israel or the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Drews demonstrates a ldegree of ignorance. Jesus did not claim for the most part his teachings were new, but rather said they could be found in Old Testament, which is why Jesus is always wuoting the OY. Any one who has sctually studied Jewish teaching traditions clearly recognize Jesus style. It is quite different from Socrates style. Socrates only asks questions. Jesus will often respond to a question with one of his own, but he will answer the question he was asked if the questioner answers Jesus questions, something very different from Socrates style.

Answering a question with a question was a common debating method.ll


The ideal of charity propagated by Jesus is likewise not originally Christian, but borrowed from Deuteronomy, the Book of Leviticus and the Book of Tobias. In addition, it contradicts its numerous threats of eternal hell torment for all possible supposed offenses, including the rejection of his doctrine (e.g. Mk 6:11; Mt 10:15; Mt 12:23), which also runs completely counter to the love for ´enemies´ (Mt 5:44) propagated in the Sermon on the Mount. Nowhere in the Jesuan speeches is the artificiality of a Jesus figure, sewn together from legends, more evident than in this contradiction, unless one presupposes a preacher who talks like this today and like that tomorrow, and a following that is not disturbed by it. The problem is aggravated by the fact that the Jewish tradition does not even know an eternal hell punishment, which is introduced into the Jewish discourse only by Jesus, the supposed "Prince of Peace". [/Quotes]

Jesus for most of the time never said he was inventing anything, that he freeuently quoted the Old Testament argues the opposite. His "love thy neighbor"" was an Old Testament quote, Jesus never pretended to have invented that commandment.

Drews argues against the view that is common among modern Christians hold, but it universal.

In summary it can be said that the figure of Jesus is by no means as perfect and exemplary as the Christian tradition would have us believe to this day. Furthermore it can only be regarded as authentic with an unjustifiable advance of trust in texts (the 4 gospels) which, apart from the aforementioned inconsistencies and improbabilities, are only historically attested from 180 CE, thus about 100 years after their alleged origin.
In summary, you and your source arguments have little merit or validity to them, and just reflect your obvious personal bias.

The implied claim that there was nothing at all unique in Jesus teaching is not supported by a reading of the source material. Jesus defense and justification for the belief of the resurrection of the dead was unique to Jesus. Neither Jews who argued for the belief of a future life of the dead nor later Christians used Jesus oen argument from Old Testament scripture. (Jesus argument that God's revelation to Moses that God is the god of Jacob, Isasc, and Abraham shows that the dead will live is unique to Jesus, and shows no parallel to Go nostic teaching, for example.

The fact that Jesus parables might find similarities in other literature if the time in no ways reflects on the historical accuracy or lack there of canonical Gospels, any more than Jesus quoting the OT proves or disproves the historicity of a saying of Jesus.

While the lack of the use of the OT strongly argues against the historical reliability of the Gnostics and apocryphal Gospels, use of the OT by Jesus in the canonical doesn't prove the reliability of the canonical Gospels, although it is an argument in their favor.
 
Last edited:

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#4
PS - Berachoth 5:3 is from the Talmud, which is significantly later than the Gospels. The earliest parts of the Talmud date to around 200 AD, decades after the last canonical gospels were written, and the Talmud as a whole was not compiles until around the 5th century AD. Any borrowing would likely be by the Talmud from the Gospels, and not the other way around. Both likely drew on the same Jewish tradition, but the use of anything from the Talmud to argue about the historical reliability of the canonical gospels is very problematic, since as a historical source the Talmud is significantly worse than the canonical gospels. The Talmud is far more remote from the times it was written, at times shows very second rate scholarship. An entire story of Abraham coming out of the fire resulted from Talmud scholars mistranslation of the Hebrew word Ur, for example.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#5
Much of the scholarship of 19th century German scholars like Drew's has been made on site by newer discoveries like the Dead Sea Scroll and other discoveries.

Having read large parts of the Talmud, much of its logic is inferior to those of the Gospels, and the opponents in the Talmud are even more stick figures and straw men than the Pharisees and Sadducees of the NT, and have less historicity to them. A sign of the low level the Talmud resorts to is some of its opponents being tormented by being boiled in excrement. "Crude" is rather mild a term to describe the level sinks to time.

And the very basis of the Talmud, the Oral Torah, is completely ahistorical and lacking any real historical evidence. If the historicity if the canonical Gospels is problematic, the Talmud has none at all. Josephus, who wrote extensively on Jewish matters, knows nothing about an Oral Torah, nor does any other early Jewish writers, or non Jewish writers for that matter. The early Christians who extensively debated the Jews, know nothing about an Oral Torah, although we see in Jesus criticisms of the Pharisees about their traditions from the elders superceding the explicit commands of the Old Testament the beginnings of what would later become the Oral Torah.

Only when the Rabbis had gained control of Judaism, and all other forms of Judaism (Sadducees, Essenes, Christians) had been eliminated or driven out was the concept of the Oral Torah brought up. By the time the Talmud was written, Christians and Jews were separate communities with their own separate interest.

I am sorry to go off on a tangent, but to use the Talmud, composed 4 centuries after the events, to pass judgement on works that were 60 years or less, is just too much to ignore.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#6
I don't recall the parables ever being presented as proof of the existence of Jesus.

Neither do I. However, I have heard of the Sermon on the mount as well as the Pater Noster being used as evidence to prove Jesus''Jewishness. This is because both the sermon and the prayer are very Jewish, or so I've been told,.

It has been long forgotten that Jesus was a devout Jew and that the sect he founded originally admitted Jews only. I believe it was Saul who invented Christianity, which over a period of 2000 years, devolved into the Catholic church and a hole bunch of other sects.
 
May 2011
2,854
Rural Australia
#7
In summary it can be said that the figure of Jesus is by no means as perfect and exemplary as the Christian tradition would have us believe to this day. Furthermore it can only be regarded as authentic with an unjustifiable advance of trust in texts (the 4 gospels) which, apart from the aforementioned inconsistencies and improbabilities, are only historically attested from 180 CE, thus about 100 years after their alleged origin.
This so-called historical attestation (of the gospels) from 180 CE has been furnished by the same (non independent) tradition that supposedly preserved the gospels, and cannot serve as a terminus ad quem (latest possible date).

Drews is still useful.
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#8
a. The parables

German radical critique Arthur Drews has refuted in detail the argument of the believers in the existence of Jesus that the supposed uniqueness of Jesus' parables is a certain proof of his existence. Thus many parables can be traced back to more or less similar stories in older Gnostic traditions or in the Talmud, which can hardly be suspected of having imitated the evangelistic parables. The parable of ´workers in the vineyard´, for example, can be found in analogous form in Berachoth 5:3, but with a much more reasonable punch line than his derivative in Mt 20:15 ff, where the vineyard owner acts like an irrational narcissist. Also the parable of ´royal wedding feast´ in Mt 22:1 ff. is not only based on a Talmudic model, but is considerably behind it in terms of logic and ethics. The Talmud was also the model for the parables of the lost sheep and the lost piece of silver.

b. The teaching speeches

As for the teachings of the Jesus figure, the situation is not better. The basic problem here - of course - is the questionable authenticity of the sayings. Source Q, a hypothetical lost collection of sayings from which the authors of Mt and Lk are said to have drawn Mk as an alternative to their other source, stands on shaky legs as a guarantee of authenticity. Drews argues that if this collection had really contained genuine Jesus sayings, it would certainly have been guarded like a treasure and, moreover, numerous backup copies would have been made of it. Instead, Q seems not only to have been lost, but also forgotten for centuries, and it has been reserved for critical modernist biblical scholars to rediscover it - speculatively.

According to Drews, many teachings lack both wisdom and originality. They are far from reaching the fine dialectic of Socrates. The fact that Pharisees and Sadducees are so easily taken by surprise by Jesuan rhetoric has a propagandistic fictional effect. They thus follow the pattern of the princes in the 29th chapter of the Book of Job, who can only stand silent and open-mouthed in the face of Job's speeches. Jesus' love for the weak and the lowly, as emphasized by theologians, is shown in Psalm 8 and in the Halach, the Kidushin and the Tanchuma of the Talmud, as exemplified by the children, birds and flowers in his speeches. The fact that Jesus accentuates his God as ´father´ to a much greater degree and thus goes far beyond the traditional Jewish image of God is a standard theological argument that does not stand up to reality. On closer inspection the Jesuan God turns out to be indistinguishable from the Jewish God, whose caring ´fatherly´ qualities are clearly expressed e.g. in Psalm 103 and in Isaiah 63:16. The identity of the concepts of God becomes evident in Mk 12:28 f. and Mt 22:32, where Jesus speaks of the One God of Israel or the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The ideal of charity propagated by Jesus is likewise not originally Christian, but borrowed from Deuteronomy, the Book of Leviticus and the Book of Tobias. In addition, it contradicts its numerous threats of eternal hell torment for all possible supposed offenses, including the rejection of his doctrine (e.g. Mk 6:11; Mt 10:15; Mt 12:23), which also runs completely counter to the love for ´enemies´ (Mt 5:44) propagated in the Sermon on the Mount. Nowhere in the Jesuan speeches is the artificiality of a Jesus figure, sewn together from legends, more evident than in this contradiction, unless one presupposes a preacher who talks like this today and like that tomorrow, and a following that is not disturbed by it. The problem is aggravated by the fact that the Jewish tradition does not even know an eternal hell punishment, which is introduced into the Jewish discourse only by Jesus, the supposed "Prince of Peace".

In summary it can be said that the figure of Jesus is by no means as perfect and exemplary as the Christian tradition would have us believe to this day. Furthermore it can only be regarded as authentic with an unjustifiable advance of trust in texts (the 4 gospels) which, apart from the aforementioned inconsistencies and improbabilities, are only historically attested from 180 CE, thus about 100 years after their alleged origin.
Great post.

I've heard of the hypothetical Source Q. Seems very convenient, or is it simply a logical conclusion? (remembering that a sound logical inference is not a guarantee of truth). The argument that such a document would have been closely guarded is an assumption, apparently unsupported by hard evidence.

I'm quite interested in the timeline for the writing of the Gospels which were finally included in the Christian canon. I've always accepted the common view that the Gospels were written about 70ce, which is over 2 human generations at the time. That has meant it was highly unlikely that any of Jesus' disciples would have still been alive, But, 180 years is even better. I have used the timeline in arguing there is not one contemporary account about Jesus. His historicity cannot be proved. However, I accept it's probable that during the reign of Tiberius, there was an itinerant rabbi called something like Yeshua/yoshua bar Yusuf, who had a mother called Miriam. That he was crucified by the Romans for sedition. I say that because that the Romans crucified thousand of Jews in the first century Judea, and at that time the land was neck deep in wandering rabbis.

I've been reading over the last few years about the Pauline Epistles. The Epistles are arguably more important than the Gospels,. because the faith called Christianity should be more accurately called "Paulism". Scholars have long argued that at least some of the Pauline epistles are forgeries. In recent years, some scholars have suggested that it seems all of the epistles may be forgeries. Could you let me have your opinion on that claim?

Christians tend to ignore / don't want to know the extent of Jesus' Jewishness and the Jewishness of his sect. I'll mention just one thing you haven't covered; the miracles . . My understanding is that prophets performing miracles is part of Jewish tradition, going back at least to Moses.

Not sure if it's on topic; Jesus as mashiach (messiah) has been rejected by Judaism consistently since the time of Jesus. Below are a few bits. I have included a link to my source. It is very detailed and worth reading. This is not a source I have used before, but it seems about right:


The Messiah is not divine

The Messiah is to be a warrior prophet in the Davidic tradition. Hence the necessity that he come from the House of David? He is often called 'mashiach ben David' .

He will be a great leader, winning many battles for Israel and a great judge.



WHEN he will come:


"
  • if Israel repented a single day;
  • if Israel observed a single Shabbat properly;
  • if Israel observed two Shabbats in a row properly;
  • in a generation that is totally innocent or totally guilty;
  • in a generation that loses hope;
  • in a generation where children are totally disrespectful towards their parents and elders;
Olam Ha-Ba: The Messianic Age

The world after the messiah comes is often referred to in Jewish literature as Olam Ha-Ba (oh-LAHM hah-BAH), the World to Come. This term can cause some confusion, because it is also used to refer to a spiritual afterlife. In English, we commonly use the term "messianic age" to refer specifically to the time of the messiah.


Olam Ha-Ba will be characterized by the peaceful co-existence of all people (Isaiah 2:4). Hatred, intolerance and war will cease to exist. Some authorities suggest that the laws of nature will change, so that predatory beasts will no longer seek prey and agriculture will bring forth supernatural abundance (Isaiah 11:6-11:9). Others, however, say that these statements are merely an allegory for peace and prosperity. "


Judaism 101: Mashiach: The Messiah
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#9
This so-called historical attestation (of the gospels) from 180 CE has been furnished by the same (non independent) tradition that supposedly preserved the gospels, and cannot serve as a terminus ad quem (latest possible date).

Drews is still useful.
Drews is out of date and his 19th century scholarship has long been superceded by more recent archeological discovers. Dead Sea Scrolls and thd discoveries of apocryphal gospels have helped our understanding of early Christianity. Youike what he says, but he still is pretty much wrong in what he said. 19th century scholars mDe. number.of claims that later were proven wrong by archeology. And

As for the 180 date, there is indirect evidence from Justin Martyr , mentions the memoirs of the apostles, which seem to be referring to the gospels, and makes several quotes/references that appear to come from the canonical.gospels. While he does not name the memoirs, so it is not entirely certain if he has just the canonical Gospels in mind, it does provide independent support for their existence, it does not admittedly prove anything for certain.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#10
I find Drew's claims for both the Talmud and the Gnostics as sources of Jesus parables as utter nonsense. Neither the the Gnostics nor the Talmud style match those of the parables in the Gospels and sincd Talmud wasn't written 5 centuries after the Gospelz , any borrowing would be from the gospels to the Talmud, not the other way around. Same for the Gnostics , who didnt emerge until the 2nd century and the gospels in the 1st century CE.

German 19th century scholars always remind of the same psuo logic used by the Nazis, who used to their bizzare logic to come up with bonkers ideas. Their idea of "scientifically" proving racial superiority would be so laughable if it didn't lead to such tragedy.


I've heard of the hypothetical Source Q. Seems very convenient, or is it simply a logical conclusion? (remembering that a sound logical inference is not a guarantee of truth). The argument that such a document would have been closely guarded is an assumption, apparently unsupported by hard evidence.
Q is just a hypothesis to explain certain common features of Matthew and Luke as oppose to Mark. Luke and Matthew both used Mark as a source is the best guess, and they sometime differ from Mark in the same way. They also.have saying common to each other that are not found in Mark. One simple explanation is that both used s second source in addition to Mark, where they got these sayings. It appears that Q was just a sayings Gospel, like the Gospel of St. Thomas which just as sayingz of Jesus with no story or narrative structure. But the only evidence we have for Q is common features found in both Luke and Matthew but not Mark. There may be other explanations to account for these commonalities, but Q is the best theory so far.

I'm quite interested in the timeline for the writing of the Gospels which were finally included in the Christian canon. I've always accepted the common view that the Gospels were written about 70ce, which is over 2 human generations at the time. That has meant it was highly unlikely that any of Jesus' disciples would have still been alive, But, 180 years is even better. I have used the timeline in arguing there is not one contemporary account about Jesus. His historicity cannot be proved. However, I accept it's probable that during the reign of Tiberius, there was an itinerant rabbi called something like Yeshua/yoshua bar Yusuf, who had a mother called Miriam. That he was crucified by the Romans for sedition. I say that because that the Romans crucified thousand of Jews in the first century Judea, and at that time the land was neck deep in wandering rabbis.
Mark is estimated to be written around 70 CE, but Luke and Matthew around 80 or 90, and John around 90 or 100 CE are the current guesses. Iraneus in 180 CE insisted there were only 4 acceptable Gospels, which implies that the 4 canonical gospels had become more or less "canonical" before that time, at least a decade or 2 earlier..Justin Martyr talks about the "memoirs of the apostles", which seem to be our canonical gospels base on his quotes, but he does not mention the name or number.

PS a generation was the same back the ss it is today. It wasn't 15 years. It is a common myth people always died real young back then. For exsmple, Socrates died in his 70s and it was the poison cup he drank, not old age that did him in. A read about a memorial of a Roman centrurion should died when he was in his 50's fighting at the Battle of Teutonberg Forest.

If you made it to your teens, you had a good chance of making it to your 50's, 60's. The Gospel started to be written when the eyewitnesses sould started dying off due to old age, and the last accepted was John, written was the last of the eyewitnessez would have been dying off. . Boy of 15 would have just been around 75 in 90, which was possible.




I've been reading over the last few years about the Pauline Epistles. The Epistles are arguably more important than the Gospels,. because the faith called Christianity should be more accurately called "Paulism". Scholars have long argued that at least some of the Pauline epistles are forgeries. In recent years, some scholars have suggested that it seems all of the epistles may be forgeries. Could you let me have your opinion on that claim? [/Quote ]

It is generally assumed that some of the Epistles are forgeries but the scholars who say they are all forgeries are those who are committed to non historical Jesus. It is virtually impossible to accept the the Epistles generally accepted most othet scholars as genuine and maintain a non historical Jesus. It is clear in Paul's letters Jesus was a real human being who had brothers (one which he did not agree with all). If a man has brothers, then he must have existed , non existent people don't have real brothers. The only way to get around it is to declare all Paul's letters forget, so you don't have to deal with that.

Christians tend to ignore / don't want to know the extent of Jesus' Jewishness and the Jewishness of his sect. I'll mention just one thing you haven't covered; the miracles . . My understanding is that prophets performing miracles is part of Jewish tradition, going back at least to Moses.
Your are correct on both. Performing miracles was a proof that a man was really sent by God, since only a man Good was with could perform miracles. The Gospels repeatedly cite Jesus performing miracles proof he really was the Messiah and sho he said he was. In.almost every case , Jesus one ups the miracles.performed by the prophet of the Old Testament. Elisha miraculously feeds one widow, Jesus .irsculously feeds 5,000 . Elijah hesls a leper, Jesus heals 10 lepers at one time. One prophet raises a widows son from the dead, Jesus raises at least 3 from the dead, including one person who had been dead 3 days and should have been a rotting corpse by then.

Not sure if it's on topic; Jesus as mashiach (messiah) has been rejected by Judaism consistently since the time of Jesus. Below are a few bits. I have included a link to my source. It is very detailed and worth reading. This is not a source I have used before, but it seems about right:


The Messiah is not divine
The Old.Testament does not talk about a Messiah as such you have to read between the lines . It is Just Jewish opinion and Christians interpret the same passage differently. Daniel talks off of one who is "ancient of days" who is to come and seems more than an ordinary human. And in Issiah 9:6 he says " until us a child is born and the government shall be on his shoulders, and he shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father" that does not seem the titles of a mere human. Christians have their opinion, and Jews theirs. There are 2 billion Christians and maybe 20 million Jews

The Messiah is to be a warrior prophet in the Davidic tradition. Hence the necessity that he come from the House of David? He is often called 'mashiach ben David' .
In Jesus second coming he will be the warrior the Jews expected. Just not the first time. Jesus plans to come back a second time, and watch out. The world end, literally.

Luke asserts Jesus is of David's line.

He will be a great leader, winning many battles for Israel and a great judge.
He do this in his second coming. But he might define Israel differently than the Jews expect


WHEN he will come:


"
  • if Israel repented a single day;
  • if Israel observed a single Shabbat properly;
  • if Israel observed two Shabbats in a row properly;
  • in a generation that is totally innocent or totally guilty;
  • in a generation that loses hope;
  • in a generation where children are totally disrespectful towards their parents and elders;
Olam Ha-Ba: The Messianic Age
Jesus according to Christians has a second coming. Maybe it will be when those requirements are.met

The world after the messiah comes is often referred to in Jewish literature as Olam Ha-Ba (oh-LAHM hah-BAH), the World to Come. This term can cause some confusion, because it is also used to refer to a spiritual afterlife. In English, we commonly use the term "messianic age" to refer specifically to the time of the messiah.


Olam Ha-Ba will be characterized by the peaceful co-existence of all people (Isaiah 2:4). Hatred, intolerance and war will cease to exist. Some authorities suggest that the laws of nature will change, so that predatory beasts will no longer seek prey and agriculture will bring forth supernatural abundance (Isaiah 11:6-11:9). Others, however, say that these statements are merely an allegory for peace and prosperity. "


Judaism 101: Mashiach: The Messiah
Christians believe Jesus will usher in new Heaven Be a New Earth, and all the evils of this world will be vanished and eliminated . But also means that when he comes again , everyone both the dead and the living will be judged and anyone whose name is not in the book of Life (all Christian believers)like will condemned for all time, no second chances. While many/most believe this will involve unending tormet, many Christians believe this will mean just that the judgement will be permanent not that you will be roasting for all time.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions